It’s official: The Monroe Doctrine is back. And as the latest US attack on Cuba shows, its purpose is to serve the neoliberal order.

by PETER BOLTON

In November 2013, then-Secretary of State John Kerry declared: “The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”1
The reality of Obama administration policy did not entirely support
this assertion; there was the executive order against Venezuela in 2015,
support for the coup in Honduras in 2009, and ominously close ties with
right-wing governments across the region. But with other more
encouraging steps such as the normalization of relations with Cuba and
the (belated) show of support for the Colombian Peace Process, there
were at least some modest steps towards greater mutual respect for
national sovereignty in the Hemisphere. Then came the unexpected
election of Donald Trump. Though throughout his election campaign he
expressed a preference for US isolationism and opposition to senseless
war, once in office he appointed the very neoconservative war hawks he
had earlier criticized for engineering such foreign debacles as the
disastrous invasion of Iraq. His appointments to hemispheric policy
posts have been the least encouraging, with figures such as the
convicted criminal Elliot Abrams reemerging from obscurity to
saber-rattle against traditional Latin American foes. Ever since Trump
entered the White House, there has been a growing sense that the Monroe
Doctrine is back. Now, that suspicion has been confirmed. On April 17,
National Security Advisor John Bolton said: “Today, we proudly proclaim
for all to hear: the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.”2

Latest move in ‘Troika of Tyranny’ Strategy

Bolton made the announcement during a speech in Miami to veterans of the CIA-orchestrated3 invasion of Cuba in 1961 – known in Cuban-American exile folklore as the “Bay of Pigs.” But
the main purpose of the speech was to make public the latest addition
to his so-called “Troika of Tyranny” strategy: a new punitive measure
against Cuba to add to the already crippling array of sanctions,
isolation tactics, and trade prohibitions that make up the decades-long
economic blockade.4 Having severely, though not entirely,5
rolled back the Obama-era normalization process, the Trump
administration now considers property in Cuba that was seized by the
Cuban government from “Americans” to be open game for lawsuits.6
It was unclear whether he was referring to US citizens generally, Cuban
exiles specifically or any US resident, but he indicated that foreign
companies with any business dealings relating to expropriated property
will be subject to possible lawsuits. He stated: “Americans who have had
their private and hard-earned property stolen in Cuba will finally be
allowed to sue.”7

The measure will be implemented by
reactivating a provision of the notorious Helms-Burton Act that up until
now had been suspended since the Clinton administration.8
Known as “Title III,” the clause allows lawsuits against foreign
companies that have “trafficked” or otherwise benefited from the use of
property seized since the beginning of the Cuban Revolution in 1959.9
Such property is believed to include a wide range of real estate
including residential houses and investments in the tourism industry
such as hotels and ports used by cruise companies.10 Bolton also indicated that those who “traffic” in this “stolen” property will be denied visas to enter the United States.11

International condemnation

The move has been widely condemned
across the world including by Canada and multiple US allies in Europe
who have warned of potential counter-lawsuits in response and pledged to
challenge the move through the World Trade Organization.12
In anticipation of Wednesday’s announcement, European Commission
foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and European Trade Commissioner
Cecilia Malmström said to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a joint
letter sent on April 10 that “the issue of outstanding US claims should
not be conflated with the cause of furthering democracy and human rights
in Cuba.”13
Similarly, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland
released a statement on Wednesday saying that “Canada is deeply
disappointed with today’s announcement.”14

The new sanctions come as the US has become ever more isolated on its policy toward Cuba. Last November, all but four of the 193 nations of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution condemning the blockade.15 The two “No” votes, unsurprisingly, came from the US and Israel (with two other nations casting abstentions). Similar resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly with a majority in favor every year since 1992 on the basis that the blockade is a violation of international law and the UN Charter.16 This adds to decades-long condemnation from a wide array of international NGOs who have voiced their criticism. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, for instance, has stated that “the economic sanctions [that make up the blockade] have an impact on the Cuban people’s human rights, and therefore [we urge] that the embargo be lifted.”17 The Center for International Policy, meanwhile, has stated that the blockade has “created a situation of scarcity and uncertainty that has affected all aspects of Cuban society, including its healthcare system.”18

This entry was posted
on Tuesday, May 14th, 2019 at 00:05 and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.